Opinions on The Super Series

[honestbharani]

Well, the match was played in a competitive spirit and some really good performances will, thankfully, be in the record books of international cricket.

 

[Jono]

Hey Richard, where were those 300+ scores for each side you said would likely occur, making the game a 'farce'?

 

[archie mac]

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.

I would rather that you just agree with me

 

[Blaze]

Well, the match was played in a competitive spirit and some really good performances will, thankfully, be in the record books of international cricket.

Competitive spirit. R.O.W batting? Yeah right.

 

[archie mac]

Well I thought the ROW team batted just like I feared they would. They had nothing to prove, they have already been selected in the best team, Lara for one did not seem to care overly much.

As for Australia I think if they played a church under 12 side, they would go at 100%, as long as they were wearing an Australian cap.

 

[honestbharani]

Competitive spirit. R.O.W batting? Yeah right.

I don't think they took it easy at all when they were batting. McGrath bowled a superb spell and tied down the RR which forced Sehwag (who likes to score quickly, no matter what game it is) to that indiscretion. Kallis tried to dig in but found that the RR was too slow for their comfort and tried to open his shoulders but got a good ball right after. Lara tried to play a cover drive but his feet didn't move at all (normally, he moves his feet really well even early on in his innings) and that was why the ball went up in the air. He hasn't had any real cricket in the past 5 months. Dravid played a poor shot. Afridi was just being Afridi. You saw their fielding and bowling. They took it seriously alright. Juz because they didn't play at their best and Australia played better, doesn't mean that they didn't take it seriously.

 

[Richard]

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?

I certainly don't feel it was utterly stupid, I find those games to be more worth ODI status than many. Need to get fans and players to take them more seriously before they're repeated though. Got to admit I've never heard of the African Cricket Board, either.

 

[Richard]

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?

Fact is, a best-of-rest will either prove "the rest" to be resoundingly weak or it will provide situations where "the rest" are - as they darn well should be - resoundingly better.

And I still think competitive matches played between international cricketers should be given "official" status.

How do you define "competitive"? There's always going to be some competition, and IMO you can only give it to games which were sanctioned officially and were played by teams reprisenting national (and maybe regional - as in Afro-Asian) Boards.

 

[Richard]

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

There's still nothing specific about it, though, is the point I'm making. I'm certain there are things that people take for granted not to do in schools is not actually written anywhere. And up until very recently it's been taken for granted that ODIs and Tests are only to be played between teams reprisenting national Boards.

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.

I really hope so. Got to say though that I'd reckon the India and England players would be less "up for" the contest than those from teams beaten almost without respite by the Australians, the Englishmen especially because it was so recent.

 

[Richard]

Hey Richard, where were those 300+ scores for each side you said would likely occur, making the game a 'farce'?

They materialised into 255-plays-162 - a pretty bad farce, equally.
Please, though - find where I said 300+ scores were anything other than a likelihood? It's still perfectly possible, of course, that it'll happen in the remaining 2 games and you have to admit that the early stages had all the signs of 330-ish scores and it was only the near-inexplicable faltering against the bowler weakest by far that stopped it.

 

[honestbharani]

I certainly don't feel it was utterly stupid, I find those games to be more worth ODI status than many. Need to get fans and players to take them more seriously before they're repeated though. Got to admit I've never heard of the African Cricket Board, either.

It may be the African cricket committee, but I think there is an organisation representing African cricket as a whole, just like there is for Asia.

 

[honestbharani]

Fact is, a best-of-rest will either prove "the rest" to be resoundingly weak or it will provide situations where "the rest" are - as they darn well should be - resoundingly better.

How do you define "competitive"? There's always going to be some competition, and IMO you can only give it to games which were sanctioned officially and were played by teams reprisenting national (and maybe regional - as in Afro-Asian) Boards.

Well, if you really want to get into the nitty gritty of it, the ICC RoW XI represents ICC and the Australian team represents the Cricket Australia. And, as the success of Irani Trophy in India has shown, it is not a bad concept at all.

 

[honestbharani]

There's still nothing specific about it, though, is the point I'm making. I'm certain there are things that people take for granted not to do in schools is not actually written anywhere. And up until very recently it's been taken for granted that ODIs and Tests are only to be played between teams reprisenting national Boards.

I really hope so. Got to say though that I'd reckon the India and England players would be less "up for" the contest than those from teams beaten almost without respite by the Australians, the Englishmen especially because it was so recent.

Actually, I am of the feeling that a couple of guys are "too" keyed up for this series and that has cost them these games. Certainly Lara seemed to want to take control of the game straightaway, which is not how he usually bats even when chasing big targets for the Windies.

 

[honestbharani]

They materialised into 255-plays-162 - a pretty bad farce, equally.
Please, though - find where I said 300+ scores were anything other than a likelihood? It's still perfectly possible, of course, that it'll happen in the remaining 2 games and you have to admit that the early stages had all the signs of 330-ish scores and it was only the near-inexplicable faltering against the bowler weakest by far that stopped it.

330 games are not farce at all, if the batting was good enough and the pitch was flat enough. Certainly in this game, it was the case. Flat pitch and good batsmen = big scores.

 

[archie mac]

I see where Gilchrist did not think these matches should have been given official status, I wonder if he has changed his mind now?

 

[social]

Got to say though that I'd reckon the India and England players would be less "up for" the contest than those from teams beaten almost without respite by the Australians, the Englishmen especially because it was so recent.

Having been humbled in the first 2 games, I'd say that the World X1 better be up for it or else all the "good work" done for the game by England will be well and truly flushed down the toilet until the next Ashes series comes along.

 

[howardj]

Having been humbled in the first 2 games, I'd say that the World X1 better be up for it or else all the "good work" done for the game by England will be well and truly flushed down the toilet until the next Ashes series comes along.

I don't agree with that. Really, I dont think Australia's dominance in ODI's has come under threat for quite some time now. Since they regenerated in 2002, they've easily been the best team in the World. They've shown no real signs of decline in that form of the game. Rather, it's in the Test Match arena where their crown has somewhat slipped. The matches this week have had no bearing on that.

 

[social]

I don't agree with that. Really, I dont think Australia's dominance in ODI's has come under threat for quite some time now. Since they regenerated in 2002, they've easily been the best team in the World. They've shown no real signs of decline in that form of the game. Rather, it's in the Test Match arena where their crown has somewhat slipped. The matches this week have had no bearing on that.

Aus were ordinary in Eng against ordinary opposition in ODIs. Their performaces in the test matches reflected their attitude in the ODIs (Bangladesh, anyone - they'd struggle in grade cricket).

 

[howardj]

Aus were ordinary in Eng against ordinary opposition in ODIs. Their performaces in the test matches reflected their attitude in the ODIs (Bangladesh, anyone - they'd struggle in grade cricket).

Still, when it mattered, they crushed England in the final of the ODI's. There are no real weaknesses in their ODI team, that's the main point. By contrast, in Tests, Australia's lack of quality pacemen, to support Warne and McGrath, is cause for genuine concern. In ODI's, this weakness can be papered over by allrounders who only have to bowl a handful of overs. That's why such a flaw is a threat to their Test Match dominance, while their ODI supremacy continues to be largely unchallenged.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think the one crucial point throughout the Super Series so far is that the cricket has been of remarkably high quality. There's been some utterly spectacular batting, great fielding (although the catching from Australia has been poor), good bowling... it's been high quality, entertaining one day cricket. I don't like the closed roof and never have for cricket as the weather is a vital part of our game, but aside from that there's absolutely nothing to complain about in the matches in terms of them not being competitive, played in a good spirit or highly skilled. It's perfectly obvious if you look at the players and the way every run is cheered, every wicket is celebrated and see how much every error hurts that all the players on both sides are desperate to win. Aside from with their catching, Australia has played utterly superb cricket so far, and aside from suffering a bit with a lack of established teamwork the R.O.W. side has provided, as expected, wonderful opposition.

I'm very much looking forward to the final game, and very pleased indeed with the way Australia has performed, particularly the way guys like Bracken and Watson have stood up in such big games. Gilchrist's new found dominance has just added an extra element to the Flintoff battle as well.