***Official*** England in India

[Pratters]

My point being that Lara had his rough stretch when he was still relatively young, as evidenced by his ability to emerge with 4-5 pretty awesome years since then.

And Tendulkar can still have some awesome years as he is not that old. Inzamam is 36 today for example. My point is people can have performances in the latter stages of their career and believe Tendulkar will have the same.

We have no way of knowing whether

1) How is performance stand at the end of his career..
1) This is the last part of his career - for people sure this is the end portion..

Till he does hang up his boots.

So there is no way this can be resolved either way.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I knew I was going to get crucified when I said that.

I love test cricket, and much prefer it over ODI's. But we have to look at it realisitically in the subcontinent. As much as cricket lovers like Tests, and players like playing them, they just simply don't have much support as compared to an ODI.

If the purpose of cricket is to entertain, and ODI entertains more people, then it is a more important form of the game for those people. The majority of cricket watching public in India would much rather see Sachin play at top form in the World Cupt and other odi series rather than play tests against West Indies, South Africa and England.

I am not telling you how it should be, but how it is.

That's fair enough, but most people outside the sub-continent prefer Tests. And I have to say, apart from money, I fail to see the merits of ODIs.

 

[silentstriker]

You're the spokesperson for the subcontinent now?

No, it is simply my personal experience from most people I talk to. Normally, the bigger the cricket fan you are, the more you like test matches.

But its quite obvious from the television ratings/stadium attendance what people hold to be important.

If your anecdotal evidence differs from mine, well than thats fine. I actually hope you are right and test cricket will become more popular, but I am not holding my breath.

That's fair enough, but most people outside the sub-continent prefer Tests. And I have to say, apart from money, I fail to see the merits of ODIs.

Oh, my comments are confined to the sub continent, and India in particular. I realize the different attitudes in other countries, especially in England.

Test cricket is more challenging, more absorbing and more entertaining as a whole. Test cricket builds up and has an excitement that an ODI can never match. But thats for me and you, others may see it as a boring waste of time.

I rate world cup as #1, because.....well I don't know why. I certainly enjoy the test series more...but there is something about being crowned WC champion that just makes it more personally appealing.

/Again, this is me, not you

that's insane

Which part? Just my #1 ranking, or the rest as well? How would you rank the seven?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

And Tendulkar can still have some awesome years as he is not that old. Inzamam is 36 today for example. My point is people can have performances in the latter stages of their career and believe Tendulkar will have the same.

I consider a cricketer to be as old as his career, due to the wear that it puts on the body and mind. In that sense, Tendulkar is quite old.

 

[Tom Halsey]

You're the spokesperson for the subcontinent now?

He's right though - you only have to compare the crowds of the two versions in the sub-continent.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No, it is simply my personal experience from most people I talk to. Normally, the bigger the cricket fan you are, the more you like test matches.

But its quite obvious from the television ratings/stadium attendance what people hold to be important.

/I knew I shouldn't have said anything.

I think subcontintal supporters may prefer to watch a victorious World Cup campaign, but I don't think they would actually place it higher than a proper Test series win over Australia. In terms of ODI series victories being considered higher than Test series victories, I refuse to believe that the general public in India or Pakistan care more about the result of the ODI series than that of the Test series.

 

[Pratters]

He has to perform within the game of cricket and bad decisions will always be a part of the game of cricket.

The reason I brought it up was that he has had more than his fair share at times when I thought he could have played a good inning. But in the larger scheme of things it isn't relevent yes as it is a part of cricket and a player has to stride through adversity.

I wasn't really trying to give an excuse. But the point isn't going to be accepted because in the end in test cricket, as in life, results matter. So ignore the point.

 

[Pratters]

I consider a cricketer to be as old as his career, due to the wear that it puts on the body and mind. In that sense, Tendulkar is quite old.

Refer to the Dravid example I gave please. Does a player only start giving toll once he enters international cricket? Nopes. Most cricketers from the Tendulkar era who play international cricket now have had as much time, mental and physical effort time.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

He's right though - you only have to compare the crowds of the two versions in the sub-continent.

No, crowds only gauge popularity, which is not necessarily related to importance.

 

[Tom Halsey]

No, crowds only gauge popularity, which is not necessarily related to importance.

Generally speaking, popularity does influence importance and vice-versa - the more important it is, the more people will watch it. Trying to argue otherwise is nonsense.

I don't agree with it, but it is obvious that ODIs are considered to be more important in the sub-continent.

 

[silentstriker]

No, crowds only gauge popularity, which is not necessarily related to importance.

For sport, they generally do.

they would actually place it higher than a proper Test series win over Australia.

In this, I can almost unequivocally say that you are mistaken. As I have not met a single Indian person outside of these boards or in the media who would say otherwise.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Refer to the Dravid example I gave please.

Dravid example?

Cricket is not systematic and that's why it's a game of glorious uncertainties. It's why
Courtney Walsh was still one of the best in the world and better than ever at the age of 38. The fact that someone is old doesn't not mean that that person WILL decline, but it's highly likely that he/she will - biology and whatnot.

To deny, however, that Tendulkar is old in the world of cricket is denial with no basis.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Generally speaking, popularity does influence importance and vice-versa - the more important it is, the more people will watch it. Trying to argue otherwise is nonsense.

I'm not arguing against "generally speaking" and if you read my posts, I never have. I'm saying that the popularity of a series in terms of crowd value is not necessarily due to the importance in the mind of the crowd.

 

[silentstriker]

I'm not arguing against "generally speaking" and if you read my posts, I never have. I'm saying that the popularity of a series in terms of crowd value is not necessarily due to the importance in the mind of the crowd.

How would you rate the seven things I listed?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

In this, I can almost unequivocally say that you are mistaken. As I have not met a single Indian person outside of these boards or in the media who would say otherwise.

I thrive on that "almost", because there are millions of Indians who you have not and never will meet.

It's pedantic to continue this discussion any further.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I'm not arguing against "generally speaking" and if you read my posts, I never have. I'm saying that the popularity of a series in terms of crowd value is not necessarily due to the importance in the mind of the crowd.

The more important it is percieved to be, the more people will watch it.

 

[Pratters]

Dravid example?

Cricket is not systematic and that's why it's a game of glorious uncertainties. It's why
Courtney Walsh was still one of the best in the world and better than ever at the age of 38. The fact that someone is old doesn't not mean that that person WILL decline, but it's highly likely that he/she will - biology and whatnot.

I know that Liam. So why judge Tendulkar even when his career isn't over.

To deny, however, that Tendulkar is old in the world of cricket is denial with no basis.

Tendulkar is old in international cricket yes. But at his age he isn't old. It is not his fault that he was selected to play international cricket when others were grinding domestically. If you consider Tendulkar old, consider others his age old too, regardless of the international years they have put it. In the early 90s international cricket wasn't much. An international player played in the spot light. A Dravid played outside the spotlight Most were putting in as much effort, time, energy into their game.

To think that just because a Tendulkar was playing internationally, he should be more 'old' than a Dravid or a Ganguly or a Laxman is flawed logic. If some one brings up physical wear despite age (which I did mention in the Dravid example) - for example a Dean Headley retired at a young age, there is a logical thought process certainly.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

How would you rate the seven things I listed?

Doesn't matter how I rate them, because I'm not from the subcontinent.

Basically success in Test cricket > success in ODI cricket IMO.
Just look at the West Indies.

 

[silentstriker]

I thrive on that "almost", because there are millions of Indians who you have not and never will meet.

It's pedantic to continue this discussion any further.

Millions out of a billion is a small minority.

But you are right, this discussion is heading nowhere. However, I'd still be interested in your rankings.

EDIT: I know you aren't from the subcontinent, but I am interested to know how people outside rate them.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I thrive on that "almost", because there are millions of Indians who you have not and never will meet.

It's pedantic to continue this discussion any further.

I think you're the one being pedantic. Of course he's not going to meet every Indian in existence.