Opinions on The Super Series

[Richard]

Nope, not at all.
Harmison hasn't ever even been good, we don't even need to worry about that.
You will find-out soon enough precisely why I am superior to the so-called "experts" in what should and shouldn't count as what.

 

[Eclipse]

Harmison is still hard to play you must admit that much Richard?

I mean he bowls too much crap to be a 'good' bowler but with his height and bounce batsman can't attack him they way they can say Lee.. and on his day he can bowl very well.

 

[Richard]

I've yet to see Harmison bowl well in a wicket-taking manner - he can restrict runs, but he can also let them flow (since the end of the New Zealand series he has conceded over 3-an-over in 13 Tests out of 14 - Bangladesh are, obviously, excluded).
Harmison may look difficult to play but the fact that he rarely gets many wickets (except a load of tailenders at Lord's and a few more wickets at the end of the innings at Edgbaston, Old Trafford and Trent Bridge) attests to the fact that, actually, he isn't.

 

[Eclipse]

Yeah well that's kinda what i mean..

batsman don't like the extra bounce he gets and even though he's not accurate he some how seems a dificualt batsman to really get stuck into ( still can happen and has before)

He just waists to many balls in the wrong area (usualy to short)

 

[Swervy]

I've yet to see Harmison bowl well in a wicket-taking manner - he can restrict runs, but he can also let them flow (since the end of the New Zealand series he has conceded over 3-an-over in 13 Tests out of 14 - Bangladesh are, obviously, excluded).
Harmison may look difficult to play but the fact that he rarely gets many wickets (except a load of tailenders at Lord's and a few more wickets at the end of the innings at Edgbaston, Old Trafford and Trent Bridge) attests to the fact that, actually, he isn't.

well considering the average run rate these days must be 3.5 a over, going at 3 an over isnt that bad is it

 

[Swervy]

You will find-out soon enough precisely why I am superior to the so-called "experts" in what should and shouldn't count as what.

ooh..what treats have you got lined up for us.

 

[Richard]

Yeah well that's kinda what i mean..

batsman don't like the extra bounce he gets and even though he's not accurate he some how seems a dificualt batsman to really get stuck into ( still can happen and has before)

He just waists to many balls in the wrong area (usualy to short)

Well he used to bowl 2, sometimes even more, balls down leg, he's at least come some way from that.
Still, that made him economical (bowled relatively economically in Australia because he bowled so many down leg), and since he's done so he first became very economical (and started taking wickets not long after) then gone all over everywhere in a way that allows runs to flow.
But there's no denying that he's been stuck into plenty recently.

 

[Richard]

well considering the average run rate these days must be 3.5 a over, going at 3 an over isnt that bad is it

The average run-rates are only so high because the bowling's so poor.
Pollock, McGrath, Gillespie (when he's not bowling so abysmally as he bowled in The Ashes), Murali, Vaas (whe he bowls well) and the like are still perfectly capable of economy-rates in the low 2s, even in this day and age.
Yes, batsmen play more strokes these days than they did 5 years ago, but that only makes poor bowling more expensive, it doesn't make accurate bowling any easier to score from.

 

[Richard]

ooh..what treats have you got lined up for us.

You needn't worry - after all, statistics are best not bothered with, remember?

 

[marc71178]

Harmison hasn't ever even been good

And England didn't just win the Ashes.

You will find-out soon enough precisely why I am superior to the so-called "experts" in what should and shouldn't count as what.

Most arrogant post ever?

 

[Jamee999]

Easily Marc.

(Arrogence, not the Ashes)

 

[Scaly piscine]

Oh gawd who let the fruitcake out of the asylum.

 

[Richard]

Oh, gawd, who invited that idiot back in to make his unutterably predictable comments?

 

[Richard]

And England didn't just win the Ashes.

No, they did, really.

Most arrogant post ever?

No, it's true.
And plenty of other people actually realise the basic truth that non-ODI-standard teams aren't worth bothering about in ODIs.

 

[honestbharani]

Nope, it all depends on a number of things - IMO Test and ODI cricket are to be played between teams reprisenting the boards of the international sides.
The WSC matches were not officially sanctioned, they were a result of one mhogle deciding to buy the players for himself and, as I say, that's like saying that because some rich landlord decided to pay a load of World-class players to play a few games on his personal ground these matches should be classed ODIs.

Okay, so since you think that teams should be representing boards, there is an African cricket board and there is an Asian cricket community. So do you approve of the international status accorded to those matches?

 

[honestbharani]

I think you have me there But no, I would not because of the history of the WI in Test Cricket. I don't even mind them playing the game, but not with Test status. I think we might be going around in circles.

yeah, you seem to think that what is "international" and what is not should be based on the team names, while I think it should be based on the quality of players playing those games. But I respect your opinion. We should just agree to disagree, I guess.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm sure it won't be quite as bad as the Tsunami match, but that was precisely the reason the Tsunami match shouldn't have been a ODI. Personal performance wasn't the most important thing - it didn't matter who did well or who won. All that mattered was money raised for the cause.
And as a result I'd lance the game from all official records if I were to be given the chance.

I agree with you there.

 

[honestbharani]

For me, no "Rest Of" can ever truly be a worthwhile team.
It will always be a result of contrived matchmaking - "not from there against from there". And no "Rest Of" match should ever have Test-match status. First-Class cricket is different, as it's not always played by regular teams and First-Class cricket, with the odd exception (such as WSC), should just be played on status.

Well, when a certain team turns out to be so good, then people always assemble a "rest of" team to try and make sure they get competitive games. These stuff even happened in my school. We keep talking about how certain teams dominate the game so much and stuff like that. Wouldn't it be really cool if we actually had a chance to see how much their dominance is by getting them to play against the best of the rest? And I still think competitive matches played between international cricketers should be given "official" status.

 

[honestbharani]

No written rule, sure - often the unwritten rules are the more prominent. Ever seen a written school rule: "no pupil shall throw chairs at teachers"? Or many other similar things? No, they're just so obvious they don't need writing-down.

And that's precisely the point - if the players aren't motivated enough to take it seriously, we shouldn't just use top-status to force them to do so.
If they treat it seriously enough, all well and good. If they don't, it wasn't worthy of being an international ITFP.

Actually, there are rules that prohibit violence in schools. The stuff you mentioned would come under that category.

And Richard, they WILL treat this seriously. They have actually asked for the help of the video analyst of England and Pollock has already mentioned that he would be in constant touch with Freddie to make sure they do their best to beat Australia.

 

[SquidAU]

IMO, the Super Series was only done because the Aussies had been so dominant over the last 10 years. With the Ashes loss, it has taken a bit of the gloss but from an Aussie supporters view, I think it is an excellent opportunity to blood some youngsters against a side full of the world's talent (minus a couple through injuries).