Opinions on The Super Series

[Richard]

Yeah, once every few years - you sure have a weird definition of 'regular'

Once every few years is regular... I fail to see how it's not.
Irregular would be maybe once every 5, or even 10, years. Then I probably wouldn't have a problem with it, but only if schedules were assauged, which I believe should happen anyway.

 

[howardj]

Once every few years is regular... I fail to see how it's not.
Irregular would be maybe once every 5, or even 10, years. Then I probably wouldn't have a problem with it, but only if schedules were assauged, which I believe should happen anyway.

So one Test, once every four years is 'regular'.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16596492%5E2722,00.html

Geez, you wouldn't be being deliberately contrary , would you?

 

[Richard]

No, I wouldn't - what would be the point in that?
No, once every 4 years isn't as bad as some reports I've heard (some even suggested it may become a biennial event) but it's still too often for my liking.

 

[greg]

No, I wouldn't - what would be the point in that?
No, once every 4 years isn't as bad as some reports I've heard (some even suggested it may become a biennial event) but it's still too often for my liking.

It was meant to be once every four years because that is the length of the "cycle" for the future tours program. This may now slip to every 5 years because the tight timetable for the program is being relaxed. It was never going to be a bienniel event.

 

[Richard]

Malcolm Speed certainly mentioned it as a possibility - however remote - during that interview he did with Sky during the NWC.

 

[Slow Love™]

My gripe with WSC isn't the standard, that's not in question.
My gripe with WSC is and always has been that it was devised by illicit means, was never officially sanctioned and is, rightly, similar in status to a pub game between some rich landlord who's bought-up a load of the best players to play in his back ground.

So why did you say to honestbharani, that the reason these matches shouldn't have official status was the same reasons WSC don't, and shouldn't?

After all, these matches weren't devised by illicit means, are officially sanctioned, and have nothing to do with any rich landlord/entrepeneur.

 

[Richard]

Well - they have to do with getting rich, of course.
No, that wasn't the best phrased - the reason I feel it might, possibly, be better if these matches weren't full Tests and ODIs is because they're not played by regular teams. I feel it's best if a player plays Tests and ODIs for only one team (unless, obviously, he switches between two of them, which hasn't happened since I-don't-know-when).
As well as the substandard-team games I'd willingly strip the Tsunami match of ODI status for the same reason. In fact, I wouldn't even give it List-A-one-day status because it was simply a game organised to raise money - this time for 100% good reasons.
BTW - disappointed that you've dropped my "FALSE AS A SLUT" comment from your sig.

 

[Dasa]

Personally I find it totally acceptible - I find it a manufactured contest, and I don't want it to be enjoyable because I don't really believe it deserves to exist.
And if it's a failure, much the better chance of it not being repeated.

Geez man, don't you realise not everyone has the same standards as you (actually, I'd say no one on this forum does). You'd rather millions of people don't enjoy themselves to fit your unreasonable theories/ideas/whatever?

 

[Jono]

LOL @ some of these responses. Its basically "I don't like the idea of it, therefore I hope it sucks so everyone else that is looking forward to it, and has been for many months doesn't like it either."

No surprise it comes from the usual suspects. That's what makes it all that much more humorous.

Anyway I am greatly looking forward to the Super Series. I'm going to all the ODIs here in Melbourne and until 2 weeks ago was going to head up to Sydney for the test until my father who I was going to take with me has had to leave for business. Otherwise I would have gone too, such is my interest and excitement for the series.

 

[Richard]

Geez man, don't you realise not everyone has the same standards as you (actually, I'd say no one on this forum does). You'd rather millions of people don't enjoy themselves to fit your unreasonable theories/ideas/whatever?

Well... yes, actually.
Believe it or not if this Series is a failure it won't foretoom a single person to not enjoy anything for the rest of their lives... there are countless other things to enjoy.

 

[Richard]

Anyway I am greatly looking forward to the Super Series. I'm going to all the ODIs here in Melbourne and until 2 weeks ago was going to head up to Sydney for the test until my father who I was going to take with me has had to leave for business. Otherwise I would have gone too, such is my interest and excitement for the series.

What will your response be in the very-possible event that the one-dayers degenerate into 330-plays-290?

 

[Steulen]

What will your response be in the very-possible event that the one-dayers degenerate into 330-plays-290?

There's nothing World Series specific about that and as such it's not a valid argument against this series.

 

[Richard]

Eh? When did I say it was World Series related?
My argument is that I find it utterly impossible to enjoy a series of games which involve that, and I was asking Mr. Enjoy-Everything-At-All-Costs whether he would do so.

 

[Slow Love™]

No, that wasn't the best phrased - the reason I feel it might, possibly, be better if these matches weren't full Tests and ODIs is because they're not played by regular teams. I feel it's best if a player plays Tests and ODIs for only one team (unless, obviously, he switches between two of them, which hasn't happened since I-don't-know-when).

Ha, well, at least opposing it on the basis that they're not "regular" teams makes more sense as an objection (it's fairly pedantic, but I shouldn't be surprised).

And sorry about the sig change, mate. I did carry a torch for quite some time though, and it seemed like you'd disappeared.

 

[Richard]

Ah, so no chance of a return to providence, then?
(And BTW - any chance you could explain that Adrian Thingimejig comment? I still don't get it)

 

[Slow Love™]

Eh? When did I say it was World Series related?
My argument is that I find it utterly impossible to enjoy a series of games which involve that, and I was asking Mr. Enjoy-Everything-At-All-Costs whether he would do so.

He probably meant "Super Series related".

In the sense that you run as much risk of this occurring in any "regular" ODI.

 

[Slow Love™]

Ah, so no chance of a return to providence, then?
(And BTW - any chance you could explain that Adrian Thingimejig comment? I still don't get it)

Which comment?

 

[Richard]

-

I can't believe more people didn't laugh at this - it's just so out of character and I keep imagining Richard completely off his face and shouting at Adrian Edmondson at some off-license somewhere.

 

[Richard]

He probably meant "Super Series related".

In the sense that you run as much risk of this occurring in any "regular" ODI.

Well, not quite so much - see the Tsunami game, was even more of a run-glut than most ODIs.
In any case, that's not my reasoning for the games not being ODIs, that's just the reason I won't bother watching them.

 

[Steulen]

He probably meant "Super Series related".

In the sense that you run as much risk of this occurring in any "regular" ODI.

Yup...all this World Super Mega Great stuff gets me confused sometimes.