**Official** World XI v Asia XI

[JASON]

Predictions for the Match !!

Guys lets start the predictions rolling from here on.

My prediction , Rest of the world to win by 1-2 wickets in the last over or by less than 10 runs in the last over !!

 

[Linda]

Guys lets start the predictions rolling from here on.

My prediction , Rest of the world to win by 1-2 wickets in the last over or by less than 10 runs in the last over !!

More importantly, did anyone see Sharon pash Warney last night?

 

[JASON]

Found this picture on Cricinfo.

What more do you need than a game like this to promote camaraderie among the cricketers !!

 

[marc71178]

The only reason SRT has been wanting to play the game has been as it a charity match. Despite his injury, he does not want to mis an ooccasion such as this for the Tsunami victim.

Yes, but if it's an official ODI, how can he do that without it becoming 12 a side?

 

[PAKMAN]

yeah the rest of the world looks more stronger but hopin for a close finish

 

[Pratters]

Yes, but if it's an official ODI, how can he do that without it becoming 12 a side?

Fielding as the 12th man for a while.

 

[Pratters]

What channel is going to telecast the match in India? Because I haven't seen any advertisements on any of the channels, nor read anything about it in the papers. ********.com and tensports.com have nothing scheduled!?

You have scared me as even I have not found any channel promoting the fact that they will show this match! I am 99 percent sure it will be shown though considering even not so test quality test matches are shown live.

 

[Richard]

Well, that would mean that all games played by top teams against Canada, Bangladesh and the like should be stripped of ODI status. Come to think of it, let's strip ODI status from the games that England played in the late 90s.

As you well know, there's a difference.
Personally I'd be quite happy to stip all Canada, Bangladesh etc. games of ODI status, but England? That's just silly.

 

[Richard]

Nothing you ever say is.

No, a tiny fraction of things aren't.
It's just the more obvious things that are "normal" don't get posted on here - because they're so obvious.

 

[Richard]

The players are taking it seriously; they've said as much. They are there to put on a show to raise money. An entertaining, competitive game of cricket is exactly what we're going to see.

Putting on a show does not go hand-in-hand with competetive.
Indeed, there are times when they run directly counter.

 

[Richard]

I think it is good that official status has been given to these two matches. It will be good to see players play the game seriously, thus giving the spectators their charity's worth. I don't think it is that bad to try out that 12 players in a match thing in this match. I heard the ICC were contemplating this for a while, why not try it out in this match and see how it goes?

Cricket matches are between two teams of 11 players.
Anything else - more or less, or against-odds - is simply something played by some of the rules.
Cricket is cricket only when you have 11 players on each side.

 

[Richard]

Agreed.

Hayden, Gilchrist and Cairns scored half-centuries. Richard's nightmare match.

I'd not mind seeing Gilchrist and Cairns score half-centuries if they play like batsmen.
I'd never want to see Hayden score runs, of course.

 

[nikhil1772]

What channel is going to telecast the match in India? Because I haven't seen any advertisements on any of the channels, nor read anything about it in the papers. ********.com and tensports.com have nothing scheduled!?

I am 99% sure its on SONY...

 

[Hit4Six]

I'd not mind seeing Gilchrist and Cairns score half-centuries if they play like batsmen.
I'd never want to see Hayden score runs, of course.

if you dont like the way gilchrist and cairns bat, just wondering do u enjoy flintoff's batting?

 

[Mister Wright]

As you well know, there's a difference.
Personally I'd be quite happy to stip all Canada, Bangladesh etc. games of ODI status, but England? That's just silly.

Yes, but your definition of a ODI status game was being competitive. There was a period there where England were anything but. Strip those games of International status now.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to not give this game ODI status, it is (on paper) going to be the most competitive ODI game ever.

BTW, the fact that it does or does not have ODI status is not the major issue here, the reason why the game is being played - is.

 

[Mister Wright]

if you dont like the way gilchrist and cairns bat, just wondering do u enjoy flintoff's batting?

I can understand why someone doesn't appreciate a Gichrist innings (no matter how misguided), but to say Cairns is simply a slogger is going a bit to far. He is a technically correct batsman and has proper cricket shots, and moves his feet. Just because he is powerful, should not take away from the fact he is a proper batsman.

 

[Richard]

if you dont like the way gilchrist and cairns bat, just wondering do u enjoy flintoff's batting?

Nope, not in the slightest.

 

[Richard]

Yes, but your definition of a ODI status game was being competitive. There was a period there where England were anything but. Strip those games of International status now.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to not give this game ODI status, it is (on paper) going to be the most competitive ODI game ever.

Maybe the most star-studded, but the most competetive? We'll not know until it's played.
My definition of worthy ODI is involving two teams capable of competing with the rest - if any team is substantially below the rest I'd not want it called an ODI, ideally - of course this isn't realistic.
The real definition of ODI status, of course, is between two teams with ODI status (of which there are 11 and no more - unless you get two invented as here).

 

[Richard]

I can understand why someone doesn't appreciate a Gichrist innings (no matter how misguided), but to say Cairns is simply a slogger is going a bit to far. He is a technically correct batsman and has proper cricket shots, and moves his feet. Just because he is powerful, should not take away from the fact he is a proper batsman.

No, that's just the point I was trying to make.
Cairns (and Gilchrist - at times) is perfectly capable of batting like a batsman, rather than like a slogger. It's no coincidence, either, that he tends to score most runs when he bats properly, rather than simply slogs.
But there's no denying that there are times when he loses his head and just starts swinging as hard as he can at the ball, in any direction.

 

[bryce]

But there's no denying that there are times when he loses his head and just starts swinging as hard as he can at the ball, in any direction.

if your talking about cairns your wrong