Tone Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 Says Redbaron: I just hope channel 9 show the final, they're talking about cancelling the final and giving it to foxtel. Ch 9 are looking at showing some war?? 24hrs a day!!?? They should either wait until after the final to start their war or at least stop whilst the game is played and then resume fighting. Cricket is much more important than some silly little war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 Artiew, I didn't question Gilly's class or ability, I questioned whether he should open the batting. When he whacks 50 off 30 balls it's great but when he gets out trying to hit big shots an opener traditionally wouldn't play, I start to wonder if the side's taking a gamble we don't need to take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torneyboy Posted March 20, 2003 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 48 run win under the D/L method.......Sri Lanka were never in it once Bichel superbly ran out De Silva and then the Lankans dropped to 76 for 7......even though Vaas and Sangakarra were still at the wicket, they were not going at 6 an over and would have lost by 30+ runs.. Good win to the Aussies and Sunday is looking like a top day to watch the cricket. SB. Yes a good win . I hope we get a decent wicket for the final..you have to wonder what if ...NZ did play the game they forfieted who would we pl ay in the final?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torneyboy Posted March 20, 2003 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 Says Roppongi: A few thoughts on the World Cup: That St. Georges Park pitch is a disgrace. One day cricket is all about runs but on that pitch anything over 150 is a decent score. As much as a low scoring game can be exciting, chasing 340 and getting it wins hands down. I said before the tournament started that the semis and final should best of three. Winning the toss or a rain delay could be the difference between winning and losing so why not play three games so the best team can emerge? It would certainly generate more revenue and excitement. I'm not a fan of Gilchrist swinging at everything likes its the last few overs when he's opening. If he fails, like last night, it puts too much pressure or the lower order which so far has bailed us out but they can't always do it. You want an opener who's gonna get the team of to a good start so the other guys can swing hard when we've got wickets to spare. What do you guys think? I think i was tony grieg that said i have some advice for the groundsmen here RE the pitches""dig them up"" I hope we can have a good one on sunday i like to see a decent FULL game regardless of the outcome IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sayjann Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 'Best of three finals is used in every other 1day comp I can think of.. but haveing1 final puts a bit more pressure on the teams, therefore (hopefully) the best team will win'. i am unsure of your statement. i don't know about finals in Aussie sports,i do not have much knowledge,but in the sports i know about then the final is a one-off game. all football,rugby,cricket,hockey finals in the UK are 1 game. the Superbowl is 1 game. but the World Series is 7 games. but back to the cricket. i sort of like cricket,will watch it and have even been to England/Australia one-day game which i enjoyed. i find tests boring and i admit the World Cup has been a turn off for me. all the group games and then the Super Six series. the only one off games are the semi's and the final. this is a competition about one day games,why not have it as a straight knock-out?. 2 answers i think. money talks and the organisers and TV companies wanted to string it along to get as much exposure and money as possible. and only a few nations play cricket,so they have to have a format where it is not over in a couple of weeks. because of political problems and suchlike it meant teams like England and WI not qualifying,and teams such as Kenya going through. they are hardly a world leader in cricket. i know more countries play football,but at least in a WC or EC,after the first round of group games,you have a straight knockout with 16 teams. a much better format in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torneyboy Posted March 20, 2003 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 Says Roppongi: Artiew, I didn't question Gilly's class or ability, I questioned whether he should open the batting. When he whacks 50 off 30 balls it's great but when he gets out trying to hit big shots an opener traditionally wouldn't play, I start to wonder if the side's taking a gamble we don't need to take. Ok against the newbies but in a big must win game i am against it...move Lehman up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbaron Posted March 21, 2003 Report Share Posted March 21, 2003 Sayj, It is a bit strange seeing Kenya and Zimbabwe doing better than NZ, Wi, and dare I say it.. England. Obviously if it weren't for forfeited matches and a bit of rain, this would not have happened. Good to see something different though, I remember the confusion on peoples' faces seeing Senegal, Japan, Korea and Turkey doing better than others in the football world cup. The cricket is the only sport I know of which has 3 finals (except world cup), I thought this was the case in all ODI series.. maybe I am wrong. The advantage of having 3 finals (IMO) is not having to rely on questionable systems to work out run chases due to rain delays. he Duck system seems ok, but there has been some dodgy ones in the past. If we had 32 teams to start the comp with (like WC football), then a knockout with the final 16, yeah that would be great, but we struggle to find 16 first class teams unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sayjann Posted March 21, 2003 Report Share Posted March 21, 2003 RB. the football WC did not surprise me,host nations usually do well. adrenaline flows and expentation of the nation helps the team. i had a bet on Turkey finishing in the top 4,difficult team to beat wether it be in European competitions or qualifiers for world competitions. England have to play them twice soon and the Turks will do well at home. but the question of more then one final still alludes me. in England,the finale of a knockout competiton is a one off game. but 2 nations might play best of 3 or 5 matches in tests or ODI,is this what people may be thinking of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobbledonk Posted March 23, 2003 Report Share Posted March 23, 2003 As I write this, Australia have just finished their innings at 2-359. the highest World Cup score by any Australian team. Ricky Ponting and Damien Martyn managed a magnificent partnership (another record), and Ponting was especially impressive, dispatching anything which resembled a full toss into the stands. Several balls had to be replaced after disappearing into the crowd - doubtless to become treasured mementoes in the homes of various lucky fans. Again, Gilly was fantastic in the relatively short time he was at the crease, but it was definitely Pontings day. Well done, lads - lets hope the bowlers can tame the Indian counter-attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbaron Posted March 23, 2003 Report Share Posted March 23, 2003 Me same same you., Watching the BRILLIANT batting perfomance by our Ricky.. what an innings as captain, in the final. My voice is shot! Mr. T will have to score 200 for India to win, unless someone else makes a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.