You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
When more is less.
Anyone watch the ODI between West Indies & England yesterday?
It was a very close finish, with England eventually edging it by 29 runs.
The match was dominated by two extraordinary innings, Gayle (162) for the home team, & Buttler (150) for England, and such was the domination of bat over ball that 807 runs were scored off 98 overs.
In total, 46 sixes were scored in the day, that's roughly one every 2 overs.
The commentators were eulogising about the batsmen & generally drooling with pleasure at boundaries being hit left right & centre.
Fun to watch though? Not so much. It's like Mother-in-Law syndrome, small doses are fine, but it can get tiresome after a while. It almost became an anti-climax when a dot ball was bowled.
I've watched many an entire days Test Cricket - proper cricket, not Pyjama stuff - where no sixes have been scored & less than 250 runs scored. In fact I've watched entire 5 day Test Matches which saw less runs scored than were scored yesterday.
Not for me, I'm afraid, give me proper cricket & I'll happily sit up all night & watch it, but this toy stuff holds no interest at all.
I shudder to think what this man would have made of it.
Comments
Give me a pitch where the batting side makes 270/7 and it's a good score instead of something where 350 is 'par' and the bowlers are just cannon fodder. There is a place for high scoring grounds (see: Johannesburg and the 438 game) as well as pitches where the ball turns a mile and struggling to 200 all out off 45 overs is still a good result, but neither extreme should be standard.
Individual grounds should have characteristics - I'm fine with Johannesburg being high scoring due to altitude and being relatively flat, but I also want there to be pitches in the subcontinent that spin from the start, and pitches here where you've got to fend off Jimmy Anderson with the new ball rather than just slogging because powerplay and a nice hard new ball.
Furthermore, bilateral ODIs are so often tacked on to the end of a series to draw in crowds and make the cricket boards a few quid. Nobody remembers what happened in those games for the most part once the next series begins. If we play an ODI series against India, nobody cares about who is defending the winners' trophy.
Ireland beating Pakistan in the 2007 World Cup would have meant very little if it was just Pakistan playing Ireland in a one-off game to warm up for a meaningless ODI series against England.
Let's start playing tri-series with Ireland and Scotland in a format where both sides can beat us on any given day. Have one home and away game against each team in a group stage for 4 ODIs per team and 6 ODIs total, plus a final at the home team of the group stage winners. Have it every two years in even-numbered years (to avoid Ashes and World Cup clashes). Create a series where local bragging rights matter. People are going to remember the game if Scotland/Ireland upset us in a final at Lord's because the game has context.
I'd personally rather have the extra day but at the same time, it's probably good for the game if we can fit tests into the schedule more easily in the future.