Opinions on The Super Series

[Richard]

What rhymes with quadruple-star...?
I wonder... what is the reason there are so few regular fingerspinners in ODI cricket...?

 

[marc71178]

Well, how many are there in International cricket?

2 of them happen to have very good ER, yet you still maintain that that is only luck that they've not been hammered by batsmen...

How many games does someone have to play before it ceases to be luck?

 

[Richard]

Why are there so few in international-cricket, now...?

 

[Slow Love™]

Well, as a supporter of the Number One Team vs ROW XI concept, I would have to concede that this series has been a fairly dismal failure, because (but not only for that reason) for the most part, the ROW XI players just haven't come to the party, and they've been comprehensively outplayed.

Empirically, I believe it can produce an exciting contest that people would love to see, and I think that the past examples show this. But the off-season scheduling (which it's likely won't change), perhaps some not-so-intelligent selection, and the possible rustiness of some of the ROW XI who haven't played an awful lot in recent times have conspired to make it unlikely (IMO) that the concept will become entrenched as a regular event, as the ICC envisioned.

I guess time will tell.

 

[JASON]

I wonder if this Number One Team v Rest of the World contest be more even if it were played as a home and away series .

ie 1 test in Australia the next Test in the no 2 ranked country (which happens to be England). Then a series decider if required.

The same with the ODI series.

This series has partly been lopsided because on top of the home advantage, the Number 1 Teams Captain (RickyPonting) has won the Toss on all 4 occasions.

Playing it as a 3 test series also enables the Teams to bring in better players for the subsequent Test. ROW players will be on their toes for fear of being dropped for the next Test or losing out on another Test appearance fee !!

 

[The Baconator]

Wouldn't a 3 test series take up too much time of an already crowded calendar?

 

[honestbharani]

yeah, but if they want this to be a proper series, that might help.

 

[aussie]

I think the consept should be persisted with, but ut should be every 4 years 7 has mentioned before increasing the amount of test to 3 would be a good idea even though some may say in that could be a problem in the already crowded international calendar.

 

[shankar]

Wouldn't a 3 test series take up too much time of an already crowded calendar?

Do away with the ODIs and have at least 2 tests.

 

[howardj]

Yeah, I don't really have any problem with the SuperTest, or a SuperTest Series, once every four years. To be honest, I couldnt care that much the Super Series of ODI's, but that's probably more to do with my ambivalence towards One-Day cricket in general. With the Test though, it's been great to see the world's best players out there on the field in the same game. Perhaps it could be moved to March or April, though, so that most players would be match hardened.

 

[Pothas]

Wouldn't a 3 test series take up too much time of an already crowded calendar?

definetly, a complete waste of time

 

[archie mac]

I am enjoying the Test much more than the ODIs. And all the players seem to be taking it seriously. Would be happy to see this played every couple of years to be honest.

 

[Pratters]

One super series test match every 4 years would be good. A chance to see the people with the best skills battle it out in the real thing. A 3 test series would be a much more mouth smacking concept but with the current crowded calendars (Yes for the likes of Bangladesh vs England test series) it wouldnt be possible sadly just like proper cricket tours have been far less than they before.